Should I be concerned about the recent articles in the newspaper warning people about the dangerous levels of pollutants in our natural supply of Omega-3 (i.e fish)?
There have been several recent artricles suggesting that our natural Omega-3 food supply (i.e. fish) have become dangerously contaminated, both wild and farm raised. The abundance of industrial activity and poor quality feed for these fish have been the predominate reasons for the buildup of these alarming contamination levels. The timid recommendations made by government and many in the scientific communities say that “one fish meal a month” would be enough to get the benefits. However, as has been stated here, the trace amounts of Omega-3 in wild salmon, let alone the ZERO Omega-3 EFAs found in farm-raised salmon bely the suggestions that one meal per month is adequate. It is important to bear in mind that, even if contamination was acceptably under control and the pollutants in question were not significantly harmful, you would need 3-4 servings of salmon per day to achieve the recommended level of Omega-3 consumption to realize significant health benefits as outlined here, includin
Related Questions
- Should I be concerned about the recent articles in the newspaper warning people about the dangerous levels of pollutants in our natural supply of Omega-3 (i.e fish)?
- Do the levels found in rainwater exceed EPA drinking water MCLs? If so, why shouldn people be concerned?
- Why study people in dangerous environments, such as battlefields or natural disasters?
